Excerpt: - - as regards the second question we are clearly of opinion that the word 'proceedings' in section 80 of the act of 1865 does not include tender of pattah......assuming on the true construction of the section that the words of limitation qualify the words of clause 2, they cannot be taken to qualify the class of persons enumerated in clause 1. the word 'jaghirdars' as used in sections 1 and 3 of the act is not confined to registered jaghirdars,3. we think the case subbu v. vasanthappan i.l.r. 8 m. 351 was rightly decided, and that in principle no distinction can be drawn between zamindars and the other landholders enumerated in clause 1 of section 1, the principle of this decision, viz., that no registration by the collector does not affect title was acted on by the privy council in the cases of vizainagaram maharaja v. suryanarayana i.l.r. 9 m 307 confirming a decision of this court as to the validity of an alienation although.....

Judgment:

1. There is no enactment which in terms requires a ' landholder' to be registered before he can exercise the powers conferred by Act VIII of 1865.

2. Section I of the Act enumerates two classes of persons who, for the purposes of the Act, are included in the term ''land-holders.' The enumeration of the persons in Clause 2 concludes with the words ' and all other registered holders of land in proprietary right.' It has been argued that these words have the effect of limiting the application of the word of Clause 1 to cases where the persons therein enumerated have been registered. We do not think the section can be so construed, Assuming on the true construction of the section that the words of limitation qualify the words of Clause 2, they cannot be taken to qualify the class of persons enumerated in Clause 1. The word 'Jaghirdars' as used in Sections 1 and 3 of the Act is not confined to registered Jaghirdars,

3. We think the case Subbu v. Vasanthappan I.L.R. 8 M. 351 was rightly decided, and that in principle no distinction can be drawn between Zamindars and the other landholders enumerated in Clause 1 of Section 1, The principle of this decision, viz., that no registration by the Collector does not affect title was acted on by the Privy Council in the cases of Vizainagaram Maharaja v. Suryanarayana I.L.R. 9 M 307 confirming a decision of this Court as to the validity of an alienation although unregistered which proceeded upon the same grounds as Subbu v. Vasantapphu I.L.R. 5 M. 145.

4. With regard to the cases in which a different view has been taken, the courts appear either to have considered Valarama v. Virappa I.L.R. 8 M. 351 a binding authority, notwithstanding the decision in Subbu v. Vasantappan I.L.R. 8 M. 351 or to have distinguished the case from Subba v. Vasantappan I.L.R. 8 M. 351 on the facts.

5. Our answer therefore to the first question referred to us is in the affirmative:

As regards the second question we are clearly of opinion that the word 'proceedings' in Section 80 of the Act of 1865 does not include tender of pattah. The 'proceedings' in the section are by the express terms of the section limited to summary proceedings for arrears of rent.